Court No. - 27
Reserved Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 595 of 1994 Appellant :- N.I.A.
Respondent :- Smt. S. Devi Counsel for Appellant :- S.M.A. Kazmi,Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- S.A.N.Shah
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S.A.N. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has felt aggrieved by the award of Rs. 78,000/ dated 21.2.1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 66 of 1991 (Shyama Devi vs. Aslam and others)- awarding a sum of Rs. 78,000/- with 6 per cent rate of interest in favour of the claimants.
The factual scenario as it emerges from the record before this Court is that the deceased Raja Ram was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. On the fateful day, i.e., 16.4.1991, a tractor, driven by the respondent, came and dashed him at about 11:30 a.m. The driver of the said tractor did not blow any horn and dashed Raja Ram and he died in the hospital as the wheel of the tractor ran over his body. His brother lodged a First Information Report. The police did not accept the FIR, which was later on accepted. The charge-sheet was submitted against the driver and the claim petition was filed. Both the owner and the driver absented themselves after filing their reply, which was the denial of the fact that the vehicle (tractor) was insured. Respondent No. 3 filed its reply and no stand was taken that the vehicle was not insured with them. The Tribunal framed the issues, which were decided in favour of the claimant and that is what has aggrieved the appellant herein.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver Aslam, who was driving the tractor, did not hold valid driving licence to drive tractor. It is further submitted that it was Aslam, who was driving the vehicle, but in fact, the vehicle was shown being driven by Rafeeq Ahmad, who was substituted latter on as he was having a valid driving licence to drive tractor. It is next submitted that Rafeeq Ahmad's driving licence was also for light motor vehicle. A submission has also been made by learned Advocate that once it was held that the driver did not have proper driving licence, the court could not have ignored the relevant documents, produced by the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the compensation, awarded, is on the higher side and tractor itself involved in the accident was not insured with the Insurance Company.
In view of fact that the deceased met with an accident by the tractor. It is also submitted that the tractor was never insured with the appellant. It is now not open to the Insurance Company as the Tribunal has very rightly given its reasoning that the tractor was insured with the appellant. There is no examination of any person to prove the said fact that the tractor was not insured with them.
In the facts and circumstances, it is now not open to state that the vehicle was not insured with them. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is accepted.
It is an admitted position that deceased was 18 years of age. The accident occurred in the year 1991 as the accident occurred by tractor, which dashed the deceased Raja Ram and who died in the hospital. The award of a sum of Rs. 78,000/- with 6 per cent interest cannot be said to be exorbitant, even in the year 1991. I am supported by the decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court in catena of decisions holding that death of a person below the age of 18 years, minimum requisite amount of compensation would be Rs. 1,56,000/- with interest, wherein in this case, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 78,000/- and, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount is exorbitant.
As far as provision of law is concerned, the Insurance Company though has contended that the driver of the vehicle had driving licence to drive, once a person has a light driving licence, he can drive a tractor as tractor falls within the definition of light motor vehicle. Therefore, now the said contention, in view of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 3668, is not open to any debate.
Hence, these submissions of Insurance Company are rejected. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
Interim relief is vacated. Amount to disbursed to claimants.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 LN Tripathi